RTW: Diplomacy - A waste of time?

[vyan]

After being a fan of the Total war series since Shogun, the thing i was looking forward too in RTW most was the new and improved diplomacy feature.

The new diplomacy features offer civ style negotiating. However after playing the game for a few days and using diplomacy i am very disappointed.

Sorry if these issues have been mentioned before.

Military Access - I am never able to get this, even after offering a ridiculous amount of money. Even when your ally is getting killed and you want to help its almost impossible to get it.

Allies - Can someone please explain to me what the benefit of being someones ally is? I just fail too see one. They will never declare war on your enemy, never help you, and never do anything for you. They backstab you most of the time which is very annoying. At the moment i just don't see any difference between being an Ally with someone and being neutral to someone.

Ceasfire - I can also never seem to get one of these even after defeating the enemies two full stack armies and offering a ridiculous amount of money. the only time you can seem to get one is when kicking the enemies ass, but why would you want one then?

Ideas: I would like to see more alliance options in place. for instance i think that defensive pacts and offensive pacts would be a good idea. For instance as Britain i could make a defensive alliance with Germania. This would mean if Gaul were to attack me or Germania each nation would have to declare war on Gaul or face the prospect of other nations thinking your un-trustworty and cancelling trade rights or alliances with you.

I also think that you could have defensive alliances with multiple nations. For instance if i had a defensive alliance with germania as britain i could invite gaul to join it, or start a completely different defensive alliance with gaul that does not include germania. This would make for multiple alliances in the game so you would have to think about who you attack due to who their defensive allies are.

Offensive alliances could also work in this way but instead of it coming in to play when attacked it will come in to play when you attack someone else. This would mean you could have a conquering partner to help you in your quests.

I would also like for allies to actually care about each other instead of at the moment not really giving a crap. for instance if they see you getting beaten upon they will actually try and help you, by maybe sending you money or putting men in your land to help you defend against attacks. in the current game i have only had one battle with my allies which i sent my army to help in their land.

I would also like to see a relationship system similar to that of Victoria: A empire under the sun and Europa Universals (sp?). This way we could see who is likely to declare war with us and therefore try and pay them money to make them like us better. The relationships could be affected by conquering too many nations, attacking too many nations, moving men in territory without military access and other things like this. I think that having this feature would improve the depth of the diplomacy in the game and give it more of a meaning, because at the moment i see it as a waste of denarii to train those diplomats.

Anyway these are just a few ideas i would like too see implemented i think they would make the game more interesting and more exciting.

what do ya think?

[GonzoDave]

I am never able to get this, even after offering a ridiculous amount of money. Even when your ally is getting killed and you want to help its almost impossible to get it.

]

You did both offer and demand it?

[Saracen]

I agree for the most part. Diplomacy is "window dressing" but not substantive. I rarely bother with anything accept making a few bucks now and then.

[Noong]

Some guy made a guide for diplomacy. Its really involved and gives great tips on how to get the computer to accept whatever you want from it.
I think it is in the RTW specific board, stickied.

[Slaists]

as a matter of fact, in on RTW VH campaign map setting i am constantly able to obtain ceasefires and actually earn good money out of it... i suspect, the key is to request ceasefire not long after hostilities have started. it is especially easy when one is playing as julii and has no areas of interest right next to factions like carthage and greece. as soon as i am done with any of senate's ludicrous demands, i offer ceasefire to the "victim" and request some money for being "so nice"... in most cases they (carthagians and greeks) are willing to pay up for a few years of peace... i was never able to obtain ceasefire from the gauls though...

[Doug-Thompson]

The best time to ask for a ceasefire is when the other guy is attacked by a third faction.

[Darth Binky]

It seems to me that allying with another country actually increases the likelihood of them attacking you.

I just started a game as Egypt. Got into a fight with the Seleucids. But, so did Pontus. So I ally with Pontus. Two or three turns later, Pontus attacks me. And it was stupid, because they besieged Antioch, which I had recently taken, with a tiny army (about 300-400 men); I had a very large army (about 1500 men) with a good general sitting there saying "uhh, are you guys stupid?"

Same happened over in Tripolitania. Damned Scipii attacked me shortly after I allied with them. They were leaving me alone up to that point; they were concentrating on Numidia (who I was also at war with) and Carthage. Luckily I have a diplomat over there making the Scipii armies "disappear" as they march into my territory.

[Emperor of Nowhere]

It seems to me that allying with another country actually increases the likelihood of them attacking you.

I just started a game as Egypt. Got into a fight with the Seleucids. But, so did Pontus. So I ally with Pontus. Two or three turns later, Pontus attacks me. And it was stupid, because they besieged Antioch, which I had recently taken, with a tiny army (about 300-400 men); I had a very large army (about 1500 men) with a good general sitting there saying "uhh, are you guys stupid?"

Same happened over in Tripolitania. Damned Scipii attacked me shortly after I allied with them. They were leaving me alone up to that point; they were concentrating on Numidia (who I was also at war with) and Carthage. Luckily I have a diplomat over there making the Scipii armies "disappear" as they march into my territory.

I've noticed the exact same thing. Playing as Thrace I got a request from Macedon for an alliance. I accepted and about five or six turns later I find a smallish army attacking one of my cities.

[The Hun]

Yes I have this too. It disappoints me as I thought alliances would maybe prove useful in RTW, as in ask them for help or help them. It seems the worst thing you can do is to form alliances, they should at the very least last a few years longer before treachery

[Doug-Thompson]

I expect that a big gift of money will have the desired effect.

When you offer money, the diplomacy screen gives you the option of making the offer as a gift.

I have more money than I know what to do with. The Spanish, the British share borders with the rival Roman factions but not with me.

I expect to be very generous to the Spanish and the British. Interested to see how things turn out.

In my next Roman campaign game, I expect to be a generous benefactor to the Gauls and the Carthaginians.

[Tamur]

Diplomacy is not a waste of time. Alliances have been reported to last, solidly, over 150 years if you take care of them. Building a block of nations to resist Roman invasion together is a viable and exciting strategy, for example.

There is so much you can do with it. You just have to think rationally about how these things might work, given your options. For example, ignoring the alliance will NOT help -- you need to make contact with your ally diplomatically at least once every three years or so and either offer to buy their map info, or gift them some cash, etc.

Diplomacy is all about thinking like a diplomat. I'd suggest getting the guide I've been maintaining (right here).

Re: your suggestions and ideas, I think a lot of them would be very nice to have. You actually can tell how factions are feeling toward you by the answers they give. Hmm, this might be a good thing to add to the guide, eek... (off to )

[Lord_Winter]

Diplomacy is useful...

As a milk cow, the computer nearly always accepts to buy your map for a thousand, your trade rights for another thousand and alliance for as much more...

Making Diplomacy a major income for poor states in the first few turnes of the game...

[Lonewarrior]

Diplomacy is weird in this game, you give something to get nothing back, and I don't even know who my allies, except the 3 roman houses and senate.

[The Hun]

I don't remember my allies paying anything for trade rights or alliance

[Lord_Winter]

You of course have to demand money for it...if they can they will of course get it cheaper and they will take it for free if you offer it...

[vyan]

Diplomacy is not a waste of time. Alliances have been reported to last, solidly, over 150 years if you take care of them. Building a block of nations to resist Roman invasion together is a viable and exciting strategy, for example.

This is all very well but why should i be the one who has to give give give just to stop them from stabbing me in the back when inevitibly its going to happen in the end anyway. Also what is the point of having a 150 alliance that is going to cost me so much gold every few turns when in the end when i start getting my ass kicked by another nation they wont even care.

There is so much you can do with it. You just have to think rationally about how these things might work, given your options. For example, ignoring the alliance will NOT help -- you need to make contact with your ally diplomatically at least once every three years or so and either offer to buy their map info, or gift them some cash, etc.

Why should i be the one who has to contact them all the time and give them gifts? Surely the AI should care about alliances its self for its own self presevation if they were that important. The AI does not seem to care about maintaining alliances with any one as they do not see them as important.

Diplomacy is all about thinking like a diplomat. I'd suggest getting the guide I've been maintaining (right here).

I have read your guide and found it very interesting, however i feel that you are looking in to the diplomacy too much, like you are making it out something that its not. You seem to make it sound what the AI should be like when the AI seems to completely random and the motives behind some of the AI's diplomacy seem to be unfound.

In my opinion the AI diplomacy is more random then intellectual.

Re: your suggestions and ideas, I think a lot of them would be very nice to have. You actually can tell how factions are feeling toward you by the answers they give. Hmm, this might be a good thing to add to the guide, eek... (off to )

The answers they give seem to be the same for each diplomatic state you are with them. For instance they all say them same if they are allied with you, they say the same if they are at war with you ect.

Realistically you should know if an ally is getting annoyed with you and about to break your alliance.

[Hannibal_Barkar]

I am currently playing as Carthage on VH/M. Without Diplomacy I would have long been wiped out, by the hordes of Gauls and Scipions.

I believe Nations have regions they want to have by all means. I.e. It seems impossible to keep Numidians at peace for me. I took all the rebel regions in Africa. Maybe that is a pattern why early alliances get broken by the AI ?

[bigredlemon]

Diplomacy is useful...

As a milk cow, the computer nearly always accepts to buy your map for a thousand, your trade rights for another thousand and alliance for as much more...

Making Diplomacy a major income for poor states in the first few turnes of the game...

the computer never wants to trade maps with me, even though i'm probably the most explored nation on there.

[Slaists]

the computer never wants to trade maps with me, even though i'm probably the most explored nation on there.

the AI is usually very reluctant to reveal it's own map... they will pay dinari for your map though... :)

[Lemur]

Something I still don't understand is factions who don't know when they're whupped.

The noble armies of Carthage smashed the Egyptian forces, killed all but one of their heirs and took all of their cities except Jerusalem. In a moment of mercy, they sent an emissary to offer a ceasefire. The Egyptians rejected the offer.

Let's make this clear -- Carthage had a full army within viewing distance of Jersualem, and the Egyptians had an heir and one unit of axemen in their city. Their doom was writ large. Refusing the offer was pure, simple suicide.

Why on earth would they do it? What nation would really behave that way? Why can't a faction figure out that it's beaten? If the diplomatic AI is really so good, why can't it cower in (appropriate) fear? Why not live to fight another day?

This sort of thing really bugs me.

[The Hun]

I wanted to be able to offer help to an ally or ask for help from an ally. Diplomacy is a bit too much of a silly game

[Zatoichi]

I had a mission from the Senate to start negotiations with the Spanish, who I was currently at war with - the Senate gave me 10 turns and promised all sorts of shiny things in return. So I sent off a diplomat to talk to them in one of their 2 remaning cities - I figured I'd offer a ceasefire to get in line with the Senate's touchy-feely policy. No, the Spanish 'pulled a Gaul' and would have none of it. So I tried offering them map info, but no. So I tried offering them money, but they decided I was being 'too mysterious' and refused. Basically, in the 10 turns I had, I tried all sorts of variations and combinations, but to no avail - they just didn't want anything.

So having failed my mission, I took offence and sent in the troops to take both their remaining cities - well, you would, wouldn't you? Obviously, they're better off as Roman citizens (or slaves) under my benificent rule...

Of course, if they'd taken my money, they could have bought some better troops and put up a decent fight...

[Doug-Thompson]

Something I still don't understand is factions who don't know when they're whupped.

The noble armies of Carthage smashed the Egyptian forces, killed all but one of their heirs and took all of their cities except Jerusalem. In a moment of mercy, they sent an emissary to offer a ceasefire. The Egyptians rejected the offer.

Let's make this clear -- Carthage had a full army within viewing distance of Jersualem, and the Egyptians had an heir and one unit of axemen in their city. Their doom was writ large. Refusing the offer was pure, simple suicide.

Why on earth would they do it? What nation would really behave that way? Why can't a faction figure out that it's beaten? If the diplomatic AI is really so good, why can't it cower in (appropriate) fear? Why not live to fight another day?

This sort of thing really bugs me.

Sometimes, you'd just rather die than make peace with the ones who killed your dad and all your brothers and enslaved your sister.

[Lemur]

Sometimes, you'd just rather die than make peace with the ones who killed your dad and all your brothers and enslaved your sister.

That seems kind of ... thin. Unlike a lot of aspects of the beautiful game, I find myself struggling to justify a lot of diplmatic behavior in-game. As your answer demonstrates.

I would really like it if the diplomatic AI showed a little more situational awareness. I know that sort of thing is freakishly hard to program (the old how-the-heck-do-you-code-common-sense conundrum), but I'd like it all the same.

[AngryGerbil]

I would really like it if the diplomatic AI showed a little more situational awareness. I know that sort of thing is freakishly hard to program (the old how-the-heck-do-you-code-common-sense conundrum), but I'd like it all the same.

Civ3, although not perfect, managed to give the AI a decent amount of situational awareness. Enemy civs knew when they were stronger than you, and they knew when they were beat. And alliances meant something in Civ3. Creative Assembly could learn a thing or two from Firaxis about diplomacy IMO.

[Zatoichi]

Yeah, very true. Although, I'm guessing Firaxis could learn a thing or two about 3 dimensional real time battles from CA too!

What would you give to get those 2 sets of devs in a room and not let them out until they'd made the ultimate game!

Well, I'll settle for Rome in the meantime, it may not have the best diplomacy model, but it's an improvement over what came before in the TW series, so it's a move in the right direction.

[Doug-Thompson]

That seems kind of ... thin.

Haven't had a family member murdered or a sister or child raped, have you?

I haven't either, but have interviewed people who have.

[Sociopsychoactive]

What several of you seem to be missing is that factions have a level of like/dislike toward you and others.

Remember in CIV2 and 3, the other factions responces and diplomats stance and expretion told you their feelings toward you, well that holds here, but you only have the responces to go by.

Take an example, you as Julii take all spanish cities but one, and park near the last with a large army and rquest a cease fire. They refuse point blank every time. This is because they hate your guts, every single one of them would rather fight and die than let a single roman citizen live.

Another example, early on you as Brutii request some money from the other roman factions in return for waging war on the greek cities. They all pony up some cash, and then you don't attack, or only make token aggresion against the greeks. next time you want smething, anything, from your mates they will see you as untrustworthy and refuse, and they have very long memories.

But, it can work. If you go to war with someone, repel all their invading armies and then sit your side of the border looking menacing, but not attacking and offer (or even demand) a cease fire, they will most likely accept. You are seen as more trustworthy.

Every time you attack an ally, break a cease fire, demand cash or anything else for a less than fair price your standing with the world goes down, you look bad and untrustworthy. Seen as the bulk of gamers play to win, expand and conquer they will be seen as total gits from early on and have serious trouble getting so much as a trade agreement from diplomacy.

The few who play diplomatically, making friends and giving regular gifts, not making threats and only attacking people they are at war with or buetral with will be able to rake in cash and keep alliances indefinately.

[Lemur]

Haven't had a family member murdered or a sister or child raped, have you?

Doug, that's a really dangerous line of rhetoric to take, especially if you happen to be wrong in your assumption. I'll take a No for the rape and Yes for murder. Thanks for asking. (Can I end that with a "wanker," or is that in violation of forum rules?)

So getting back to the issue of AI diplomacy, and away from groundless assumptions about people we haven't met, I haven't tried the diplomacy in Civ 3, largely because I haven't tried Civ 3. Back in the day of Civ 2 I got so disgusted with phalanxes sinking my battleships that I walked away from the entire endeavor. I take it everything's much improved in 3, eh?

Well, again, even though it's incredibly difficult to program common sense, I wish the AI factions had just a tad more of it.

[Colovion]

I never have really taken time to do diplomacy until RTW. It isn't polished, but it's better than MTW's. YOu really have to try to be proactive in the diplomacy and keep your good face up or your allies or those in a ceasefire with you might start to forget your good nature and start looking longingly at that juicy settlement. In 2 years of diplomacy with the Thracians I turned our bitter war into a peaceful Protectorate - nicely skyrocketting their economy in the process.